Forward Engagement Integrating Forecasting with Policymaking

1
Forward EngagementIntegrating Forecasting with
Policymaking

• Spring 2004
• Elliott School of International Affairs
• The George Washington University

2
Section I Introduction

• Presented by Steve Cahall

3
IntroductionA plan is nothing - planning is
everything

• Why Think about the Future?
• Increasing rate of historical change.
• Governments need to anticipate and respond early
  in order to effectively manage change.
• Need to institutionalize forecasting as a regular
  part of policy making process.
• What is Forward Engagement?
• Systematically thinking about the future.
• Enabling public policy to engage the future
  sooner rather than later.
• Envision a desirable future and actively manage
  change.

4
Introduction

• What are the stakes?
• Global leadership of the United States
• Liberal democratic system
• Survival of the International State System
• Environmental Sustainability
• Societal Stability
• Survival of Humanity

5
Introduction

• What have we done in Class?

Build Institutions
6
Future Contingencies of Interest (FCIs)

• New developments in any human endeavor with
  profound implications for society.
• Magnitude and velocity necessitate action now to
  affect their occurrence and outcome.

7
Future Contingencies of Interest

• Economics
• High technology textiles
• Energy
• Rejection of Capitalism by developing world
• India
• China
• Environment
• Developing countries default on IMF loans

• Security
• Nanotechnology
• Genetics
• Environment
• Energy
• Disease
• Artificial Intelligence

• Security
• Increased asymmetric warfare
• Geopolitical shifts and alliances
• Revolutionary weapons development
• Surveillance
• Demographics
• State disintegration

• Governance
• Internet governance
• Water Scarcity
• Mass privatization
• Space colonization
• Regionalism
• Disease
• State disintegration

8
Nodes

• Dynamic points of intersection among FCIs.
• Developments in one area have ripple effects in
  other areas.
• Cause and effect operate in a positive feedback
  loop.

9
Key Nodal Players

• Technology
• Energy
• Demographics
• Environment
• Health
• Multipolarity
• North-South Divide

10
Section IIInstitutionalizing Forward Engagement

• Presented by Melissa Nachatelo

11
Case for a Planning Institution

• Increasing Interconnectivity of developments in
  Human Affairs.
• Future Planning within government highly
  disaggregated.
• Lack of strong directional pull that imparts
  coherence to US policies concerning the future.
• Government Policy lags development rather than
  lead.

12
National Commission on Strategic Planning (CSP)

• CSP Mandate
• Identifying FCIs pertinent to U.S. interests
• Coordinating government efforts to implement a
  national strategy for U.S. policy.
• Provides input to executive and legislature to
  facilitate forward-leaning policy.

13
National Commission on Strategic Planning

• Characteristics
• Centralized, Coordinative institution charged
  with long-term forecasting and policy planning.
• Joint Commission serves both the Executive and
  Legislative branches of government.
• Plays an advisory role.
• Composed of Political Appointees, executive staff
  and Subject Matter Experts
• Life of the Commission automatically renewed

14
National Commission on Strategic Planning
White House / NSC
Executive Delegates
Congress

Commissioners
Congressional Delegates
External Relations
FCI Generation and Analysis Policy Options
Government Dept / Agencies
INPUT / COORDINATION
INPUT / COORDINATION
Think Tanks, NGOs, etc.
15
Key Functions of the CSP

• Identify FCIs.
• Robust understanding of the issues and
  interactions.
• Identify policy options.
• Provide coherence to overall U.S. Policy by
  working with Executive and the Legislative.
• Conduct periodic review of policy options and
  assess impact of policies.
• Participates in the executive budget and program
  review process.

16
Section III CSP Structure

• Presented by Sean Connell

17
CSP Organization
Board of Commissioners
Executive Staff
Executive Staff
FCI Generation and Analysis Policy Options
Task Forces
Task Forces
Task Forces
To Think Tanks, NGOs, Govt Depts Agencies, etc.
18
Board of Commissioners
Chief Commissioner
Im the Big Boss Lady

• Nine Commissioners
• 5 appointed by President
• Only 3 from the same party
• At least 2 private citizens
• 2 appointed by Senate
• 2 appointed by House
• 3 year terms
• Staggered appointments

8 Commissioner
19
Functions of the Board of Commissioners

• Chief Commissioner
• Appointed by the President
• Commissioners
• Responsible for crystallizing issues
• Conceptualizing policy options for congress and
  the executive

20
Executive Staff
Executive Director
Deputy Director
Director of External Relations
General Counsel
Congressional Liaisons
Govt. Agency Liaisons
21
Functions of Executive Staff

• The Executive Director
• Reports to the Board of Commissioners
• Responsible for managerial, operational and
  administrative aspects
• The Deputy Director
• Reports to the Executive Director
• Represents the Commission in the budget and
  program review process
• Director of External Relations
• Reports to the Deputy Director
• Main point of contact for all Executive,
  Legislative and Government Agencies
• Public outreach coordinator

22
Functions of Executive Staff (Cont.)

• General Counsel
• Advisor on Legal issues
• Government Agency Liaisons
• Works with the Director of External Relations
• Liaise with Executive Agencies
• Congressional Liaisons
• Reports to the Director of External Relations
• Liaise with Executive Agencies

23
Task Forces
Public Health
Deputy Director
Science Tech T.F.
Governance T.F.
Economic T.F
Security T.F.
24
Section IV Case Study

• Presented by Emily Waechter

25
A Case Study in Genetics

• Objective
• To trace an example through the Commissions
  policy-making process.
• Step 1 Identify the Issues
• Uses roundtables, Delphi method, expert
  consultations to generate ideas.
• Perceives that developments in Genetic
  Engineering could have positive and negative
  consequences.

26
Understanding the Issues

• Step 2 Research
• Generates a report based on input from
  think-tanks and research institutions.
• Considers socio-economic benefits and fallout of
  genetic engineering.
• Report projects current trends, such as
  population.
• Also considers possible wild-card scenarios, like
  new forms of biological weapons.
• Allows commission to develop a full understanding
  of issues.

27
Translating Issues into Policy

• Step 3 Developing Policy Options
• Science/Technology Task Force forms suggestions
  for addressing issues.
• Genetic Engineering Policies could include
• Complete ban on all cloning
• Increased federal funds for RD in genetics
• Constructing a regulatory agency to govern
  genetically-modified foods.
• Increasing the retirement age if life expectancy
  increases

28
Enhancing Policies

• Step 4 Infusion into the Policy Process
• Recommendations considered by Congress and
  President to develop legislation.
• Policies should sunset to promote periodic
  review
• President can work to achieve international
  support for policies.
• Step 5 Research Continues
• Commission monitors progress in genetic
  engineering.
• Has policy had the desired effect? Are new
  issues emerging?
• Continuous process of updating policies.

29
Section V Conclusion
30
Challenges

• Commission will require policymakers to buy into
  the benefits of long-range planning.
• There also must be some public support for the
  establishment and maintenance of the Commission.
• Long-range planning may be overshadowed by more
  immediate issues.
• CSP must remain non-partisan
• CSPs recommendations may create disdain in
  agencies who are having budgets or programs cut.
• Liable to be ignored because of the lack of
  enforcement capabilities.
• As a high-profile government entity,
• the Commission will create a reputation.

31
Conclusions

• As the 9/11 Commission has shown, there is a
  growing need for coordination and planning across
  government agencies.
• A need exists not only to prevent possible
  threats, but to foster future opportunities.
• An opportunity exists now to create an
  institution that will think about the future.

32
Conclusions

• Our current system is focused on specialized,
  reactive policy development.
• The CSP is the best way to institutionalize
  long-range planning in a way that will be
  available but not intrusive to the President
  and the Congress.
• Both legislative and executive
• branches will have a stake in its
• success.

33
Questions